What do you think of Boxing Historian Bert Sugar's take on Mayweather....

[IMDAZED]

I can agree with that. He is strictly that, a boxing historian who has his own strong opinions just like all of us.

His knowledge about boxing history is impeccable but opinions that pertains to boxing could be of another thing.

So you don't think that any of his opinions have any weight in it at all? Not one?

Sure they have weight. When he talks about old fighters, I listen - he is a true historian and is 400yrs old, so he definitely knows his stuff. As far as anything I've seen with my own two eyes? His opinion is no more valid than yours or mine, as far as I'm concerned.

[RubenSonny]

No, he sucks at a lot of opinions and is great at a lot of others. He's human.

He is a tool. A knowledgeable man who knows way more about boxing than most but often says nonsensical bullcrap to gain attention or says things to validate the popular opinion of the masses of dumb fans. He knows better, ofcourse he knew Marquez had no chance and it was a **** fight but he said the absolute opposite, at this moment in time, hes a sad old man.

[The Gambler1981]

It's kinda ****** because you really have to delude yourself in order to believe that.

"Floyd was playing mind games but it backfired."

Obviously, Floyd knew in advance Manny's a b*tch when it comes to testing and would conjure up excuse after excuse. Well, whatever makes people feel better.

Indeed, that is the funniest part of that whole argument to me.

I also don't get how even if he knew that and knew Manny would ***** out, how does that reflect on Mayweather really.

If I play chicken with someone and they blink first they lose, it doesn't matter if I know for a fact they will blink first, in fact the first rule of chicken is "knowing" that the other guy will blink first or else that is a dumb contest to get into.

The excuses are priceless though, as they have entertained me for the year.

[IMDAZED]

Indeed, that is the funniest part of that whole argument to me.

I also don't get how even if he knew that and knew Manny would ***** out, how does that reflect on Mayweather really.

If I play chicken with someone and they blink first they lose, it doesn't matter if I know for a fact they will blink first, in fact the first rule of chicken is "knowing" that the other guy will blink first or else that is a dumb contest to get into.

The excuses are priceless though, as they have entertained me for the year.

Well said, G. Well said and well-played.

[fabie]

Sure they have weight. When he talks about old fighters, I listen - he is a true historian and is 400yrs old, so he definitely knows his stuff. As far as anything I've seen with my own two eyes? His opinion is no more valid than yours or mine, as far as I'm concerned.

I concur.

In my honest opinion, he had the liberty and luxury to "know" history but using that to gauge other boxers could be too "linear" in comparison. Thus it is akin to just having a notebook filled with notes but his memory is his notebook.

While I agree with his opinion on Mayweather (not entirely but slanted towards it), I don't think it has something to do with HISTORY if you will.

If we can compare him into his place in a TV NEWS NETWORK, he would be strictly a reporter/journalist but not with the editorial/commentary slant. He would just report what's there to be seen.

But not relegating his contributions to pugilism, he earned his credentials and much kudos to him. It is just that people would readily agree to him just because of his wealth of knowledge (memory) of boxing in general.

[IMDAZED]

I concur.

In my honest opinion, he had the liberty and luxury to "know" history but using that to gauge other boxers could be too "linear" in comparison. Thus it is akin to just having a notebook filled with notes but his memory is his notebook.

While I agree with his opinion on Mayweather (not entirely but slanted towards it), I don't think it has something to do with HISTORY if you will.

If we can compare him into his place in a TV NEWS NETWORK, he would be strictly a reporter/journalist but not with the editorial/commentary slant. He would just report what's there to be seen.

But not relegating his contributions to pugilism, he earned his credentials and much kudos to him. It is just that people would readily agree to him just because of his wealth of knowledge (memory) of boxing in general.

I guess. I can't see whatever video you placed here but I know his opinion on Floyd changes every week. Hard to take it seriously.

[gattigal]

Didn't listen to Sugar, but about Pac/Matweather, Floyd gets bothered about it, Manny doesn't. In many people's minds, Floyd ain't **** without that fight, and he knows it.